Dale Beckett

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Dale Beckett

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Dale Beckett

Troy alleged...
> > [ ]
> I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
> lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
> for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
> and from what I can read on here have seen alot.
>
> Troy
>
>
>

Mike, Jerry, Bill.... you're not going to let that pass, are you? :)


--

Dale Beckett

Keep YerSpam

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Keep YerSpam

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Keep YerSpam

Troy wrote:
>> <<<snip>>> A friend of my dad's had a
> bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
> even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.


<<<snip>>>
"Cruise around 65 mph" in one of those is being _very_ generous.
More like 45. On the roads of the day, that felt like 90 does today.
You could likely get it to 65, but it was really working the engine.
And zero to 60 took around 30 seconds.
You'd get mowed down on a modern freeway. ;)

Cheers,
- JJ

Jeff Strickland

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Jeff Strickland

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Jeff Strickland

That would be a good solution for cars that are used on the street, but not
so good for off-road vehicles, unless whatever they bolted on ran all of the
time. You really don't want a super charger or turbo to be kicking in while
climbing on rocks, but having it give a boost when entering the freeway
makes lots of sense.





"Troy" <troy@ .> wrote in message
news:sLudneyDLdEJMNTeRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got
>me wondering...
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> Troy
>

Jason Backshall

> Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
> producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model
Ts,
> stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

By all means if you want to turbocharge a Model T, be my guest.

Come to think of it.. I'd pay to see that :)

J.